[Back]

D. Thrän, K. Schering, U. Schmieder, K. Andersson, P. Deane, M. Dotzauer, I. Hannula, C. Hennig, E. Höftberger, J. Kiel, L. Kranzl, P. Kroon, N. Lange, M. Nielsen, K. Norbeck, A. Philbrook, I. Rowe, T. Schildhauer, F. Schipfer, H. Siikavirta, L. Similä, G. Talluri:
"Expectation and implementation of flexible bioenergy in different countries";
Report for IEA Bioenergy TCP; Report No. 1, 2021; 129 pages.

Flexible bioenergy - as defined in IEA Bioenergy Task 44 - is a bioenergy system that can provide
multiple services and benefits to the energy system under varying operating conditions and/or loads.
This report compares eleven OECD members in their status and expectation on flexible bioenergy.
This includes Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United States of America.
The actual role of bioenergy in the different countries strongly varies between sectors and countries,
from only some percent up to more than 30% of the final energy demand. The heating and cooling
sector is of major relevance today, and the expectation of varying renewable energies in the
electricity sector lead to additional demand for flexibility. However, the power sector has a major
impact in the perception of energy transition. While most of the countries are still in the decision
making for climate neutral energy provision systems towards 2050 at the latest, the consideration of
flexible bioenergy is still in an early stage.
Dedicated chances for flexible bioenergy are seen in the substitution of fossil fuels, in support of the
energy transition providing flexible electricity, and also in different energy system services such as
biofuels provision, renewable heat implementation as well as carbon capture and utilisation options
and the reduction of grid operation costs. Even though all surveyed countries are OECD members,
the status, policy frame and examples are heterogeneous and give different priorities to short term
flexible bioenergy and multiproduct systems and longer-term flexibility services as well. Thus, even
under the consideration of the phase of system transformation towards fluctuating renewables, as
proposed by IEA (https://www.iea.org/topics/system-integration-of-renewables), we still see
different expectations between the countries.
To introduce flexible bioenergy there is no blue print at the table. However, most of the countries
mentioned best practice examples. Hence, as a first area of action we propose a better mapping and
promotion of best practices, as there is a wide variety of options to use biomass in different sectors
(https://task44.ieabioenergy.com/best-practices/). Additionally, the countries see the need to
encourage demonstration in pilot plants, which requires support by renewable energy research and
implementation actions.
Technological barriers are not seen to be a major challenge, but an economic feasible integration of
the technologies in the overall energy system. Coherent policy support to integrate flexible
bioenergy in the energy system is considered as necessary. To unlock the potential benefits, we
propose a stronger link between flexible bioenergy and other options for flexibility, such as demand
side management, energy storage, power-to-X and also green hydrogen.

Flexibility, Energy System

https://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/publik_301357.pdf